You literally once argued that Halifax had the correct position in WW2. I don't think you actually think this, but it's symptom that the world is complex and simply opting for a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' way of viewing life doesn't translate to international politics and grand strategy. Sadly I think you struggle with this nuance.
I've always argued Ukraine should be allowed to end the war on realistic terms. The problem as I continually point out and you continually ignore is that Putin is not interested in a comprising peace, and that without real tangible ability to actually stop Putin from just reinvading (such as NATO membership for Ukraine), any 'peace' is temporary at most and will just lead to worse results for both the west and Ukraine.
Ukrainians begging for supplies to fight for their own independence = people like me wanting other people to do their fighting for them. Pure loony toons.
This old Kremlin talking point. Demanding an election which you wouldn't even recognise while allowing releasing Russia of it's democratic obligations. Why not allow all of Ukraine and Crimea a free and fair referendum (one not observed by the socialist workers party) as to if they would like be Ukrainian or Russian?
I didn't know you were in favour of people dying of cancer... You must be right, as youre on here and not in a lab curing cancer?
Seriously why aren't you trying to cure cancer right now? I can't stand people like you who claim to not want people dying of cancer but aren't actively out curing cancer.
I'm going to stop there because typing that out made me feel so disingenuously stupid. What you wrote should make you feel the same.
Whataboutism concedes the point.
If you were a russian I think this point might carry but you're not. Being concerned about your country waging a colonial war of aggression on its neighbours is perfectly valid. Supporting a third party country hostile to your own as it conducts a brutal war and echoing it's talking points as gospel is wrong.
Again, more whataboutism.
The first gulf war? The one which was caused by Iraq deciding it's neighbour Kuwait didn't have right to statehood so he started a brutal and unprovoked invasion. The war which ended in the total victory and liberation of Kuwait with almost no coalition casualties and led to the humbling of a brutal dictator but yet apparently made everything worse? Stirling.... If you had opposed that interest of letting Saddam win and allowing the global supply of oil to be further disrupted I'd have definitely called you an appeaser and an apologist.
Right, so to use a Russia is just totally winning argument for a hindsight peace deal when Russia is actually not just totally winning (in the grand scheme of things - it's winning in some ways of course) is not a sensible arguement. Glad we agree.
Could you be more specific?
This is the whole point, eventually it does become your problem. If might equals right and you can have things just because you want them, you end up with a Falklands situation where our interests are harmed. We live in a world where we submit ourselves to law, if you abandon that world it's only us who will lose out.
So much wrong with this arguement. Firstly if your solution is that nuclear blackmail should always be respected. Every country in the world will proliferate. How does that make the world safer?
Secondly Ukraine literally non-proliferated at the request of the west (and Russia) in exchange that it's sovereignty would be respected. To turn your back on this is in itself a decision, a decision with consequences. All of this only increases the likelihood of a nuclear exchange, not decreases it.
Data and polling says the total opposite, I think people are very concerned about outsourcing their countries energy supply to unstable dictators because of some bonkers net zero target or whatever political drive is in fashion.
They are totally different conflicts which are not directly comparable in hardly any way. To try to compare these is just glib and disingenuous at best. Pure Kremlin guff at worse.
Depends on what the treaty was. As you suggest from your 'evidence'. A total surrender deal (appeasement) would have been highly costly to the UK and would accelerate us to another world war.
If only such a thing existed beyond 'pwease just surwender ukwaine'...
What would Russia compromise on? Not taking more land isn't a compromise....
Agreed. Good thing no one is making you.
Refer you to my point above. What will Russia concede on?
Lining up some fresh cope already for when Trump lets you down. Lovely stuff.
Stay warm.